In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
I would have thought any history of surround sound for recording would
contain more than a passing mention of Ambisonics. It seems to me
like the Betamax of surround sound - technically superior but poorly
marketed.

Roy.
Yes, I agree in part, but what I was trying to do was to explain the
origins of surround sound as it applied originally to vynil. I don't
think that Ambisonics was poorly marketed as much as just too late. By
the time ambisonics came about, the public was fed up of "quadrophonic"
systems that didn't work. Anyway, I question the whole premise of
surround sound through four (or five) loudspeakers. It relies on
pair-wise phantom images which just don't work in practice. As we know,
frontal phantom images work quite well, rear phantom images work after
a fashion, but don't provide accurate localisation, and sideways
phantom images hardly form at all. For classical music (which is the
only format Nimbus has tried ambisonics, as far as I know) it will work
OK for ambiance, but not for remote soloists. 5.1 surround works for
films with the distraction of pictures, but not terribly well for
music. Unless some sound-field synthesis system can be evolved that
doesn't require 200 'speakers (see my earlier posts on the subject)
we're stuck with pair-wise phantom images, and consequently ambisonics
or otherwise, poor surround sound.

By far and away the most impressive stereo I've heard was yonks ago in a
near anechoic listening room at BBC Wood Norton. It was the old chapel in
Wood Norton hall - so large and an irregular shape - and heavily treated
to reduce unwanted reflections. With an pair of BBC LS 3/1 which had 15"
bass units with a pair of concentric HF1300 tweeters, the imaging was
stunning - with any out of phase material coming from well outside the
nominal sound stage, even from behind.

No commercial surround system - then or now - got even close on the
variety of material we listened to. Over the months I was there on a
course my colleagues brought in their own systems which we all listened to
- and the results were still impressive.

Which left an undying impression that spending money on acoustic treatment
of your listening room is far better spent than many thousands on the
finest amplifier, etc.

Oh - and the current fad for laminate floors and blinds rather than
carpets and curtains means you're on a hiding to nothing.

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.